You just come back with saying that somehow the Ron Paul supporters are going to vote to unbind every delegate...when that isn't allowed in the
rules.

This is a very contentious issue right now. In the 1976 convention Reagan had 79 bound delegates, who were on his side;and, his campaign had a
strategy to have them abstain. When it came down to it, this would not have been enough to reach the magic number, so he gave in to Ford losing by
less than 200 votes.

According to some, a bound delegate may vote their conscience at the convention, whether bound or not. There are rules at the national level which
supersede state rules, especially regarding winner take all states. If the bound delegate, voted against the pledge, then the state party might fine
them or throw them out of the party, but it is not illegal.

Rather, we explain that the RNC rules’ provision on the unit rule make it clear that delegates aren’t bound to vote according to how most
delegates from their state are voting. In fact, delegates can vote according to their own judgment and conscience, and that this is most likely to
take place in a state where a state party’s winner-take-all rule has allowed a candidate to win all delegates primarily due to a split in the
majority vote, or due to votes cast by non-Republican voters participating in the contest.

To explain our case, we look to the language of Rule 38, which was adopted in its current form in 1964. The rule states: “no delegate shall be bound
by any attempt of any state or Congressional district to impose the unit rule.” The unit rule does not prohibit a state from using a winner-take-all
primary in the same way that Rule 15(b) prohibits most states from using a winner-take-all primary when holding a contest earlier than April 1st.
However, the unit rule does prohibit binding delegates to vote according to how a majority of delegates from their state vote – again, a scenario
most likely to occur in a state using the winner-take-all rule.

My opinion is that it really comes down to whomever has the most "real delegates", will decide, as, the rules can even be changed on the convention
floor. One benefit of Romney's bound delegates is that he was in many cases, able to pick his own slate of trusted supporters. However, in
Massachusetts, Paul supporters were able replace many of these delegates, although they are still bound to Romney. A small percentage of "Stealth
Delegates" could change the odds considerably of reaching 1144 on the first round.

I understand that both Gingrich and Santorum campaigns have suggested such a strategy. The Ron Paul campaign has made no such suggestions.

Oh, and don't forget Santorum has not officially resigned. In the event of a brokered convention, he may add himself to the mix.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Ron Paul couldn't beat Mitt Romney in a debate...he would have no chance against Obama. The debates are Obama's gold...Ron Paul will look silly
next to him with his oversized suit, jittering and nervous chuckling and crazy laugh when he is trying to make a point.

Oh he don't like Ron
Paul.

Americans realize after watching Obama play golf for three years while raising debt ceiling that being great at the debate podium doesn't equate to
being a good President. Being a smooth talker won't be as much help the second time around. Well maybe it will on the easily amused.

Some people want to keep their benefits though, that is understandable.

Ron Paul couldn't beat Mitt Romney in a debate...he would have no chance against Obama.

In all the debate's I've seen Romney in, all he does is make excuses for his previous flip flops while stuttering non-stop. Never directly answers a
question either, attempting to change the topic. Where I come from these are signs of a terrible debater. Take a debate class or two and you might
understand.

Four years ago, John McCain was not well liked by many in the grassroots and 14 delegates with that sentiment showed their displeasure by voting
“abstain” Ron Paul supporters who are bound as delegates in the first ballot for Mitt Romney can do the same thing in 2012, in order to force a
brokered convention. Then it's lights out for that Goldmans Sachs, the Mitt Puppet, Romney.

Would people support them and more importantly would the media cover them at all?

The last question HAS always BEEN the most relevant because propaganda is king in an empire of deception.

FTFY

Truth trumps propaganda and thats why we have a constitution in this USA. Sure its possible for an "inside job" and a set of criminals to fool most
of the people some of the time. But their crime spree is about up and its time we took our nation back.

BTW, I'm intending to write in Ron Paul if I have to - and Dennis Kusinich for VP. He's also "libertarian" as i am - but left leaning. RP is
extremely right-leaning. The www.politicalcompass.org... demonstrates how the current and past
candidates stack up. They're biased toward authoritarianism which is ANTI-CONSTITUTION. That means they've committed high crimes such as perjury vs
their oath of offices passing things like the diss-patriot act and NDAA.

Perjury, also known as forswearing, is the willful act of swearing a
false oath or affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to a judicial proceeding.

Obviously
circumventing the courts matters to judicial proceedings - and the only reason they're not impeached (Bush, obama, Gonzoles, Cheney, Lieberman, ...etc
) is because they've also bribed and threatened anyone who would otherwise do the right thing.

I think it is obvious that Outkast Searcher is a disinfo agent and he always seems to be first on the scene of any pro Ron Paul thread. His
unwillingness to accept facts on anything that represents anything pro Ron Paul is very clear and shows what he is here for. Ignore at all costs!

Originally posted by TheOngoingJourney
I think it is obvious that Outkast Searcher is a disinfo agent and he always seems to be first on the scene of any pro Ron Paul thread. His
unwillingness to accept facts on anything that represents anything pro Ron Paul is very clear and shows what he is here for. Ignore at all costs!

I concur... I would love to name more however don't wanna do that... however you can go to there name there on the left and search their old post and
see what they are pushing... some even delcare themselves as shills lol But it is ok because people like that that spew factless points and cant hold
an actual conversation about it help ron paul..

People see that and think "wtf" I don't want to sound like this ship wreck... and of course they will look into whats going on more..

Personally I'm surprised the Establishment is still using this tatic because they would be better off straight up ignoring the Ron Paul rEVOLution...
hoping that it doesn't spread... but it will and it can't be stopped

Even if Ron Paul were to win the nomination, and the election, there is no way on Earth he will ever push his agenda through the corporatist congress
and Senate. Ain't gonna happen. We are talking about a lame duck presidency at best.

Originally posted by openminded2011
Even if Ron Paul were to win the nomination, and the election, there is no way on Earth he will ever push his agenda through the corporatist congress
and Senate. Ain't gonna happen. We are talking about a lame duck presidency at best.

I have to disagree with you only because I believe he would keep the people so informed on everything the government was doing that the whole nation
would go on strike until the right things were done... any president can call on the people and if he told them "we must change here is our path and
the only way corporate america will listen is if you stop what your doing and pay attention.." the people would.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.